LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 53.ANCIENT HEROES AND MODERN CELEBRITIES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

53. ANCIENT  HEROES AND MODERN CELEBRITIES

Every society has its heroes from ancient mythology  and history. It is the modern fashion to consider the mythological heroes as the product of human invention. Historical personalities regarded as great belong to many categories- some are local, some have  short-lived reputations, some are recognised late, but some never get their due. But as Shakespeare said many have greatness thrust upon them.

But the modern age also is prolific in creating its own heroes- but they are not all real life heroes. Cine stars, Pop stars, Sports stars: in the end, what is their achievement? Good writers , poets  and artists enhance the quality of life, but they are hardly regarded as heroes!

In India, cine stars are not only celebrated, but almost deified! Politicians are worshipped as heroes. Figures like Gandhi and Nehru are considered so high, no critical evaluation of their life and work is attempted. So is Dr.Ambedkar now. The full force of govt. machinery and educational establishment is used to foster a particular view , to project a specific angle as the whole truth, and millions of youngsters grow up with such officially-sponsored myth in the name of history.

Right from the colonial days, education has been used as the instrument of official propaganda. After Independence, our new rulers have just continued the line and strengthened it further. Independent thinking and critical evaluation are not only not encouraged, they are not even tolerated. If you have to study history or economics, you have to toe the leftist line! Go to JNU and attempt a little independent thinking and see for yourself!

Even the writings in the newspapers are one-sided. The editors allow mainly those writings which support their line. There is so little space for readers to express their views, especially if they express disagreement. 

Most of the people considered educated have no clear idea of even important issues. The United States of America was born as a result of a Revolution- war with England. Almost every American citizen knows the bare facts, the main events. This can hardly be said of the Indian War of Independence,1857, or even the Freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhi is regarded as the Father of the Nation. Yet, how many of us know precisely what exactly he did?  Nehru is regarded as a great freedom fighter; yet what exactly did he do? How does he compare with Sardar Patel? Or Subhaschandra Bose? Few of us ask such questions.

Take Mahatma Gandhi. We are taught he got us Independence due to his non-violent policies. But what are the facts? Did his policies work or succeed? Did he lead effectively all through? It is one thing to admire a man for his personal qualities of head and heart, but it is entirely another to evaluate him as a mass leader. Let us take a few facts and see how Gandhiji fared as a  political leader.

1919. Gandhi announced the first Satyagraha movement, in response to the Rowlatt Act. It was proceeding well. But  the British prevented Gandhi from entering Punjab, and forcibly sent him back to Bombay under escort, to protest which there were some violent demonstrations in Bombay and Ahmedabad. Then General Reginald Dyer indulged in cold-blooded massacre of unarmed Indians in Jallianwala Bagh. There was a natural, spontaneous outbreak of violence, and Gandhi suspended his Satyagraha, calling it a 'Himalayan blunder'. He also blamed Indians for their violence!

Khilafat. The Sultan of Turkey had been the Khalifa of the Muslims controlling the holy lands, to whom Indian Muslims owed allegiance.. After his defeat in World War I along with Germany, England was reportedly planning to deprive him of this position. Sensing his chance to unite Hindus and Muslims, Gandhi announced the 'Khilafat' movement in support of Turkey. But, the Moplahs of Malabar, who were of Arab extraction and fanatic, indulged in violence, arson and forcible conversion of Hindus, thus souring the chances of unity. In the meantime, the Sultan of Turkey had turned a puppet in the hands of the British. Kamal Ataturk led a successful revolution against him, dethroned him, ended the office of the Khalif and thus made Khilafat meaningless! Thus, Gandhi faced his second miscalculation.

1921.  In Bardoli, Gujarat, action was announced to refuse to pay land revenue. It was proceeding well. But in the distant Chauri Chaura in UP, an incident of violence occurred against the Police. Gandhi called off the agitation in Bardoli! This action completely confused and demoralised the ranks. (Later,in 1928, Sardar Patel successfully conducted it!)

1922-25 :  Hindu-Muslim rift widened. The famous Ali Brothers increasingly went away from Congress and Gandhi.
Gandhi could not unite all the leaders- esp. Motilal Nehru and C.R.Das ; later also Lala Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya.

There was comparative lull in Gandhi's political activities between 1925-30.(During this period, Gandhi sent his son Devdas to Sri Aurobindo, saying he was without a clue, and asked Sri Aurobindo to return to politics; Sri Aurobindo of course declined.)

1930. Gandhi announced Salt Satyagraha- which was 'individual' Satyagraha- Gandhi leading the Dandi march, and Rajaji leading the Vedaranyam march, with the active participation of Sardar Vedaratnam Pillai. This was successful, and resulted in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. But soon Willingdon became the Viceroy and things worsened.

1931.  Round Table Conference failed. Gandhi was imprisoned at  Yerwada. There was the pact with Ambedkar.


8 May,1933: Gandhi released from prison. Coming out, he suspends the Civil-Disobedience movement.

1937- 39 : Congress formed provincial govts, but on the outbreak of World War II, Congress govts resigned.

Gandhi's differences with Subhas Bose emerged. Subhas Bose elected Congress President in spite of Gandhi's opposition, but Gandhi frustrates Bose's functioning.

Congress withdrawal from govt. gave Jinnah huge opportunity and advantage in cultivating the British, by supporting them at a critical time.

1940. Jinnah advocates Two-Nation theory.

( Jinnah had been a Congressman, but he did not like Gandhi mixing up religion and politics. Satyagraha, Ahimsa etc were seen by the Muslims as mainly religious (Hindu) concepts. Jinnah was a nominal Muslim with a modern, secular foreign education- almost an exact counterpart of Nehru- and he could not accept politics conducted on non-rational lines.For instance, when a devastating earthquake shook Bihar in 1934, Gandhi said it was God's punishment for people's sins!))

1942: Gandhi rejects Cripps proposals. This ended for ever the prospect of a united India. The Congress approach was confusing and tortuous.

1942: Quit India movement. Swiftly broken by the Raj. All leaders put in prison. Before his arrest, Gandhi had given the call: Do or Die. But he did not tell the people what exactly to do! With all leaders in prison, there was no one to guide the people. The BBC  made broadcast   suggesting  that people had been planning violent action, like attack on railway stations, uprooting telegraph lines, etc. People thought that probably this was what had been planned, and violence broke out. But the British brought it under full control within 6 months, and Quit India was totally broken.

1944:  Gandhi was released from prison on 6 May 1944 due to failing health ( as the British did not want him to die in their prison) . He wished to meet Jinnah on the question of Pakistan, and wrote to him on  17 July. Jinnah agreed for the meeting and they met in September. Rather, Gandhi went to Jinnah's house 14 times for talks,but  Jinnah completely outwitted him, knowing his mind fully, and refusing to give anything in writing about his own intentions! That Mahatma Gandhi sought the meeting with Jinnah and went to his house 14 times added tremendously to the image and prestige of Jinnah and made him the supreme voice of the Muslims! Even nationalistic Muslims were dismayed by this . That this was a great blunder of Gandhi can be seen by the fact that the Muslim League, which could not command the allegiance of the majority of the Muslims in 1937 had emerged as the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims in 1946 under Jinnah!

1945-47: Gandhi increasingly isolated . He was becoming erratic. Even Patel could not see eye to eye with him. In 1946, Gandhi made Nehru Congress President, though no PCC had proposed his name, depriving the chances of Patel and  Maulana Azad. Even then, a majority of PCCs wanted Sardar Patel as PM, but Gandhi foisted Nehru!  Congress refused to accept Gandhi's idea to make Jinnah form the govt and Jinnah refused to serve under Nehru. While his nominee in the govt was getting to know things from inside and frustrating them, Jinnah was carrying on secret correspondence with the British, which he had continued to do even when Churchill was out of office!


1947: Independence came, but with Partition and violence. By then, Gandhi was completely isolated and no one in the Congress listened to him.
Indian Unity failed. India was divided. Communal violence flared up.

 So, in the end, where did Gandhi succeed?

We readily believe that the old epics are mere myths, but we continue to create our own! All our leaders and heroes are products of media and literature. There is much literature on our freedom movement, but there is no one cogent account. Many issues are shrouded in mystery. We continue to go by strong impressions, or by some one account. Many facts cannot be cross-verified. Archives are now increasingly accessible, and new facts emerge, but these are lying scattered in isolated books. There is no consensus or common wisdom about how Independence came. And certainly, that is not available through official channels!

At least, did Gandhi succeed as a social leader? Let us consider a few facts:

• His idea of linguistic states has only promoted local linguistic nationalism and chauvinism. Neighbouring states cannot even share river water amicably. Persons not speaking the local language are treated as 'outsiders'. They do not even fully enjoy rights as linguistic minorities. I have lived in 7 states speaking different languages for 35  years and have experienced what this means!
• Language as the basis of state formation has also not worked as states speaking the same language have  been split, the latest instance being Andhra Pradesh, which ironically was the first linguistic state to be created!
• His insistence on Hindi as the national language has automatically made non-Hindi speaking people second class citizens in India! Hindi speaking people can do with two languages- mother tongue and English, but non Hindi speakers will have to learn minimum three! 
• While Ahimsa is prescribed for the sadhu, it has not worked as state policy anywhere in the world! When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947, even Gandhi had to accept violence! We have seen how his own successors have dealt with peaceful, non-violent agitations and demonstrations- be it Sunderlal Bahuguna,Medha Patkar, Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev!
• His economic ideas- Swadeshi, Village Swaraj, cottage and small scale industries, reversing the migration from villages to cities and restoring the economic health  and autonomy of the village- were dumped by his own anointed heir Nehru who plumped for the Soviet model!
• His idea of social upliftment has acquired a totally political dimension, with many communities clamouring for the 'backward' label. And even his 'Harijans' are now called Dalits.
• His idea of Ramrajya is anathema to most Congressmen.No  one will even mention it openly. His slogans like 'Ishwar Allah tere naam' will be repeated only by a few Hindus. Have you ever heard a Muslim say that?
• His prohibition policy, cow protection- how many state govts have accepted and implemented them? He warned against Drinks-Drugs-Gambling.How many states have accepted and implemented them?
• His programme of Satyagraha had a firm ethical base, with truth and ahimsa as the pillars. But in his own lifetime, they could only be followed by a few evolved individuals, and not by society as a whole. But its practical results were disastrous. It involved violence on the self, violence (though not physical) on others in forcing them to your point of view. For the mass mind, it only meant disobeying the authorities, diluting all respect for order and law. We have seen how this tendency has grown in free India. People now feel that if they organise themselves in sufficient numbers, they can force their way, and stall the govt.! This was a contingency anticipated by thoughtful persons like Mrs.Annie Besant and Rt.Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri.
• Over 75 years ago, he warned us against the bad health effects of some white stuff- polished rice, white(refined) flour, white sugar, white (hydrogenated/refined) oil, etc. Today, scientifically they have been shown to be bad for health. Yet how many govts have sought to promote alternatives?

Such is Indian character that we worship the cow, but let it roam the streets and eat plastic, while we consume buffalo milk; we worship the Ganga, but pollute it; we visit temples but dirty the surroundings. Similarly, we call Gandhi 'Father of the Nation', but hardly follow any of his teachings! Godse killed his body once; we are daily killing his spirit.

There can be no doubt that Gandhiji was a real Mahatma. Swami Vivekananda said: 'Him a call a real Mahatman whose heart bleeds for the poor'. If there was one real Mahatma in our politics and public life, it was Gandhiji. He gave us a practical rule to help the poor. He said: Recall the face of the poorest man you have seen. When you are about to spend your money on anything, ask yourself: how that expenditure is going to help this poor man. If we follow this, will any farmer or weaver commit suicide? But we expect the govt. to end poverty, and allow the poor to end their lives!

Most political, social and religious ideas of Gandhiji are not sound or practical; they have also lost their relevance now. But his economic ideas are the ones which will save the whole earth! 'Nature provides enough  for every man's need, but not for their greed' is the basis of sustainable economics, or steady-state economy. But who cares in India?

Note:

1. There are many sources and writings on the life of Gandhi. I have here mainly relied on the works of Rajmohan Gandhi- the grandson of Gandhiji and Rajaji! He has written well documented biographies of Gandhiji, Rajaji and Patel. The book on Patel deals at length with how Gandhi lost his grip towards the end, how Nehru rubbed him, and how the Kashmir issue was seized from Patel and mishandled by Nehru.

2. The violence following partition was due not only to the mere fact of partition, but how exactly the border was divided and fixed- in Punjab and Bengal. We have no idea how exactly this was done, how arbitrary and atrocious it was, and  how adroitly and secretly Mountbatten managed it. For an account see: The Land of Seven Rivers by Sanjeev Sanyal; Penguin,2012.Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the British lawyer, who was assigned this job, had been nominated with the approval of Jinnah.See Tunzelmann, p.176

3. When we mention Mountbatten, can Lady Mountbatten and Nehru be far behind? Did Mountbatten influence or 'manage' Nehru through Edwina? We in India do not touch this subject, but the rest of the world is debating it. For a recent update, see: Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann; Henry Holt &Co, 2007. This book provides much important information on many issues.

4. The British not only decided to grant Independence to India, but they did it too soon-sooner than any one expected, and too soon for someone's liking. India had turned a burden and liability and emerged as a creditor after World War II, and Britain was eager to shed this load. This was prompted in part also by the rebellious mood in the Indian army and Navy, consequent on Netaji Bose's INA.Bose did not directly succeed, but the heroism and determination of his INA fired the youth of the country and showed them, for the first time after 1857 that armed resistance was possible! The British were no longer confident of their loyalty! See also: Churchill's Secret War  by Madhusree Mukerjee;Tranquebar,2010.This book busts the myth and halo around Churchill. It shows him as the chief conspirator for Pakistan along with Jinnah! 

Churchill hated Indians, especially Hindus. He starved millions of people in Bengal and caused their death.But he was a great man,after all. He realised his folly, and admitted it to Nehru years later, whose freedom from fear and hatred he admired,after independence, but by then all damage had been done!

But the Bengal famine brought out another curious aspect of Indians. Thousands of people starved and died in front of the grain shops! And the Bengal leaders strictly observed non-violence! Gandhi did not apprecate it fully. Bose wondered why the people starved and died, but did not loot the grain shops!

5. If you look at the issues unemotionally, it was Jinnah who had the last laugh! He wanted only one thing,  he was unwavering on that and he got it.. The Congress leaders were unsure of themselves, no one knew exactly what he wanted, too many voices spoke, they had no plan, and ultimately they settled for power at the cost of principles.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 52. HISTORY IN LITERATURE

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

52.HISTORY IN LITERATURE

We have all studied some history- at least in school or college. We have read literature too. But our academic system is such that we have been taught to regard them as two distinct subjects.

We might have read Jawaharlal Nehru's reflections from his cell in the Ahmednagar fort prison in Hindi or his Tryst with Destiny speech. We might have read Sri Aurobindo's Uttarpara Speech ( 30 May, 1909). Keen students of our history might be aware of C.R.Das's defence of Sri Aurobindo in the Alipore Bomb Case. The first one we read because it was in our text-book. The others only interested persons would have read. 

At one level, this illustrates the difference between compulsory reading foisted on young people through the education system, and the free reading of interested persons. The motives differ greatly. The school system forces the hidden govt.agenda on people.Even govts in the so called free countries have a hand in deciding what should or should not be taught. As some formal schooling is now required for most jobs, including that of a sweeper,people have no choice. Outside the school, most reading is voluntary.The level and quality of true education is indicated by what people read on their own, after they leave school. G.K.Chesterton it was who said, 'let not study stand in the way of your education'.

At another level, how do we treat all this material? It may be considered 'academic' stuff if it forms part of our formal study; it may be seen as history if it is included in a history book; it may be considered literature if it forms part of a general anthology- which indeed is quite rare in India. How many of us would regard them as both history and literature?

Each of those pieces arose in a specific historical context. The first two merely recorded or reflected history. Nehru was in prison and he describes there how he rather started liking the place after a few days. (Dilchaspi lene lage- is what he said exactly, if my memory has not failed after 57 years). The other speech he made on the midnight of 14th August,1947 when we became free. But both speeches connected with Sri Aurobindo not only arose out of a historical context, but they made history.

Sri Aurobindo too gave a message on the occasion of Independence, as requested by AIR. It too is historical- 15th August being his 75th birthday! And his message is historical also on account of the content he put into it. But most Indians are not aware of it. Nehru's speech is nothing compared to Sri Aurobindo's message-but Nehru was in power, and so his speech was celebrated, while Sri Aurobindo, who was the first Indian to call for complete Freedom, a quarter century before Gandhi's Congress adopted it in January,1930, was forgotten, since he left active politics in 1910, 9 years before Gandhi came on the scene! (Incidentally, Congress goondas were annoyed that Independence came on Sri Aurobindo's birthday, a decision in which he had no hand,and they descended on Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry and pelted stones, and one ashramite  succumbed to the injuries.)

Sri Aurobindo returned to India after 14 years of stay and study in England, in 1893- the year in which Gandhi left for South Africa, and Vivekananda went to America! He entered Baroda state service, but the national situation slowly drew him into the vortex of politics- first secretly and then openly. His writings were a departure from the Congress culture of prayer and petition;the old guard was disturbed, and the administration woke up. The partition of Bengal in 1905 brought him into prominence, and he gave the programme of Swaraj, Swadeshi,  Boycott, Disobedience of foreign laws( Passive resistance), National education, settlement of disputes outside the British courts, improvement of the condition of the poor etc- all later adopted by Gandhi, without due acknowledgement to Sri Aurobindo! The country reverberated with the cry of Bande Mataram! He and Tilak engineered the split in the Surat Congress in 1907 and made the nationalist elements the foremost voice of complete Indian Independence. The British administration was shaken and demoralised, the Viceroy declared Sri Aurobindo 'the most dangerous man we have to deal with at present'- an honour not earned even by Gandhi: he was at most considered a nuisance! The administration wanted to silence him, implicated him in the Alipore Bomb case in May 1908, and he was put behind bars for a year in Alipore jail, most of the time in solitary confinement. But Mother India was behind him, even the British court could not convict him, and he walked free in May,1909. The Uttarpara speech was delivered after that! Such are the historical associations it evokes in a serious student of history, who does not rely solely on the concocted versions in govt. sponsored text-books.

But it became historical for another reason: it revealed for the first time the spiritual experiences of Sri Aurobindo in jail, his practice of the yoga of the Gita, his vision of everything as Vasudeva- the jail, its officers, its bars and bricks, his fellow prisoners. It also revealed to the world Sri Aurobindo's mission- to work for the mission of India in the world. He declared unequivocally: 'Sanatana dharma-that is nationalism for us'.He said India was rising for the sake of Sanatana Dharma!

The powers were unhappy with his release and some- how wanted to silence him- they feared no one else in the country, no other 'leader'. But he got his Adesh or Command,  and left British India and entered Pondicherry in April 1910 and from then till his Mahasamadhi on 5 December 1950 devoted himself to Yoga, blazing a new path. All that he wrote in the days of his political activity have been collected  and published under the title Bande Mataram. It constitutes commentary on the national situation, ideas on political science and supreme literature. No other Indian has written such English before or after him, on any subject. Few Englishmen have done it either! Compared to this, anything else written by anyone else is mere trash. Read it for yourself and judge.

Chitta Ranjan Das, summing up the defence of Sri  Aurobindo stated in the court :

.......a man like this who is being charged with the offences imputed to him stands not only before the bar in this Court but before the bar of the High Court of History and my appeal to you is this: That long after this controversy is hushed in silence, long after this turmoil, this agitation ceases, long after he is dead and gone, he will be looked upon as the poet of patriotism, as the prophet of nationalism, and the lover of humanity. Long after he is dead and gone his words will be echoed and re-echoed not only in India but across distant seas and lands.

More prophetic words have never been uttered in any court in history! And these words made Das too famous all over the country!

There is something to be said for the Judge, Mr. Beachcroft. He understood the govt. stakes in the case, understood their anxiety to have Sri Aurobindo convicted  above all, he understood the nuances of the defence and pronounced:

"Aurobindo Ghose, the most important accused in the case. He is the accused, whom more than any other the prosecution are anxious to have convicted and but for his presence in the docks there is no doubt that the case would have finished long ago.

"It is the case for the prosecution as well as for the defence  that he is of a very religious nature.

"His counsel argues that he is a Vedantist and that he has applied the doctrines of Vedantism to mould his political views; that as the doctrine of Vedantism applied to the individual is to look for the godhead within oneself and so to realize what is within oneself, so in the case of a nation, it can only grow by realizing what is best within itself, that no foreigner can give it that salvation, which it can only attain by methods indigenous to the country. His doctrines are not those of passive resistance, but of the realization of salvation by suffering. If the law is unjust, don't obey it but take the consequences. Do not be violent, but if the law is unjust, you are not bound morally to obey it; refuse to obey it and suffer. He has been saying to the people, you are not cowards, believe in yourselves and attain salvation, not by assistance from outside, but though yourselves. And this, Mr.Das says, is the key of his case.

"In Aurobindo's speeches....So far as these speeches went, they help the defence more than the prosecution.From them we get an idea of the stress he laid on national education,on lines other than those laid in Government schools, and this is in accordance with.... his policy that India is to find her salvation from within and not from without.

Even after his acquittal, the administration was trying to 'fix' Sri Aurobindo somehow- and even considered deportation. But better sense prevailed in England, and Lord Morley ,Secretary of State was firm and categorical. He wrote to the Viceroy Minto on 5 May 1910:

"As to the famous Arabindo.... the institution of proceedings against him was a foolish blunder.  (His writing) simply paraded passive resistance and abstention from taking part in public life. That may be odious and objectionable as you please, but it is at least doubtful whether any decent court will find it to be sedition.....As for deportation, I will not listen to it."

But the local administration issued a warrant against Sri Aurobindo late in April,1910, not knowing he had already left the country.

Incidentally, we must give credit to a certain trait in the British character, which did have a plain sense of justice. We may also remember that this trait had made an eminent person like Edmund Burke react against the wrong-doing of Warren Hastings and pursue Impeachment proceedings against him over a century earlier!. Gandhi's so called  non-violent methods could succeed only against the British. Hitler or Stalin would have finished him under an hour! This basic Anglo-Saxon string we see even today in the essential American: in spite of all the bullying that Uncle Sam indulges in around the world, it is still the American who is the greatest critic! It is this which makes us like the American still. Surely, such persons may not be many, but they are the  conscience-keepers  of the society! 

We can realise that Sri Aurobindo was not an ordinary politician. He had a spiritual vision of the country as Mother India, Mother Bhavani and therefore seeking her complete Independence was for him a religious quest. It was part of his Vedanta! It is an irony of fate, the twist of destiny that if any Hindu repeats those arguments now in Independent India, he will be dubbed a fundamentalist. The legislature, the judiciary, the fourth estate- they are all guardians of 'secularism'  which means every religion, other than Hinduism, can do anything in its name! But if Hindus talk of Hinduism, it becomes communalism or fundamentalism!

It is also a sad tale- how far our nationalist spirit is down since those days. When Bengal was partitioned on communal lines in 1905, the whole country rose in protest. But the subsequent leaders divided the whole country and justified it as being inevitable! Even now, Hindus have been evicted from their homes in Kashmir, and the whole country is maintaining a sacred silence!

Seen in this light, the whole of Sri Aurobindo's writings are supreme literature on  true Indian nationalism.If we study them carefully,we will understand how much Gandhi owes him! As I had shown elsewhere, wherever he followed the ideas of Sri Aurobindo, Gandhi was successful; wherever he deviated, he failed and created problems for the nation.  They were timely then, timeless now.

In literature proper, we have a specific category called 'historical' fiction. In English, Walter Scott's novels are the prime example, though we have Shakespeare's historical plays. In Tamil, we have the writings of Kalki. They are so called because they deal with some historical characters or events, though more imaginative characters and events are woven around them.

But if we think deeply, we find literature as such is historical- because every form of literature , especially what is considered realistic, arises in and reflects historical times and trends; they are related to specific historical contexts. Man is rooted in his environment, and cannot think beyond the context. But the greatness of great literature is that they raise issues which have permanent value or relevance. The trial and death of Socrates relates to one historical Greek figure- but the issue it raises has relevance for the whole of humanity. Gandhi was thrown out of a train for being coloured; he was instrumental in throwing out an empire.

But even when the novelists or writers do not deal with specific historical events or characters, they can hardly escape the spirit of the times being reflected in their writings. Thus, while Dickens deals with the Gordon riots of 1780 and the mob violence resulting in the sacking of Newgate in Barnaby Rudge, and French Revolution in the Tale of Two Cities, his novels generally deal with the socio-economic conditions of his times, especially around London. Thomas Hardy did not deal with any historical event or character, though there is a minor reference to the Napoleonic Wars in the Trumpet Major. But he dealt with the change that was sweeping over the society consequent on the industrialisation: the disruption of rural life and relationships, landscape and folklore. On a different level, he also dealt with human and class relationships and identities, the state of romantic love, marriage, gender issues, religion, etc.  On yet another level, he dealt with how things went wrong- how man was fated to fail- something like epic tragedy. His most serious works- the last two novels- were subject to hostile criticism, for being pessimistic and immoral. But these  very themes  with which Victorian society was unwilling to deal openly,have become serious subjects of psychological or psychoanalytical study subsequently.Divorce has become legal, and infidelity in marriage,common. In that sense, he hinted at a (future) 'historical' trend. Even his imaginary creation the 'Wessex' landscape is full of the spirit of history!

I have always felt that while Dickens reflected the history of his times,, Hardy reflected upon it. He left his imprint on the future. His pessimism is indeed deeply disturbing at times but we cannot wish away the tragedy and crookedness in much of human life.We cannot also deny that religion has  largely failed either to deal with the tragedy or remove the crookedness. At most, it only justifies 'God's ways among men'- whatever it may mean.

There is a lot of good literature everywhere, in any discipline. And there is history in literature! Let us not believe in artificial, academic distinctions, and enjoy both!

  

..... 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 51. MAN AGAINST HIMSELF

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

51. MAN AGAINST HIMSELF

Thinking man has to confront two basic questions: What is his place in the Universe- the Great Scheme or Order of Things and What is his relation to others in society. The first is beyond his control, often even his comprehension. The second is his creation, and is therefore subject to his machinations and manipulation. Or so he thinks.

The first question has been engaging the attention of man everywhere since antiquity. Indeed ancient man thought of little else. Ancient literature of all people on earth bears witness to this.We may now judge whether their thinking was right or wrong, but cannot deny that they thought at all. Ironically, modern man has totally sidelined this issue. Not all the scientists who indulge in lot of blah-blah on such ideas as Big Bang, the Expanding Universe, the Vastness of Space, etc really pause to think what it means for mankind. It is like the donkey carrying the load of camphor or even diamond, and not knowing its worth or quality.

We may say ability to raise this question makes man, Man- ie look up. Of all animals, man alone can look up! All other animals look around.They face down. Man alone faces up.

The ancient man decided the second question in the light of the first one. From time immemorial, man has lived in groups, in society. Since the order in nature is a given, can not the nature of the society also be taken as given? As man's thinking faculty developed he attempted various explanations.

This is reflected in our literature. Ancient literature treated the first question as the fundamental dimension of life. This is the spiritual dimension. On the basis of the answer to that question, the second, the social dimension, was approached. Some Power was in charge of the world order. There were some laws which had to be obeyed, and man did not invent these. Even Moses did not invent the Commandments. He  simply transmitted them. Poor soul, he knew his men: they would not take his word. So he asked God for some proof  to show his people that he had indeed met God!

Since the natural order was taken as God-given, the social order too was taken as divinely ordained or sanctioned. Just as man felt he could not disturb the order of nature, he could not alter the order of society. This was the universal attitude throughout the world, before the the man-made historical religions began their reign- Buddhism, Christianity, Islam. But they could not displace the old order in totality, nor could they adjust to each other peacefully. On the one hand, science interfered with the natural order and taught people to behave as if they were the owners of Nature and could do with it what they would, even when science itself could not understand it completely, or resolve all the issues. The most glaring example of such stupid thinking is the advocacy of nuclear power; science does not know how to deal with and dispose of radioactivity-how to make it safe for future generations, but they go on building nuclear plants.Such plain stupidity is considered scientific attitude.

But it was the Semitic religions which set the trend. Against all ancient wisdom, they said that God created man as the master of the earth, that everything was created for his benefit and enjoyment. 'Be fruitful and multiply; subdue the earth' was what they taught. Science gave them the tools and methods to subdue, and also to multiply. But instead of being fruitful, he has become a burden, a nuisance and a danger unto himself and the earth: everything he touched has been polluted and rendered progressively unusable on this wide and beautiful planet. This is the combined result of the Semitic religions and science and technology.

Just as natural scientists removed all notions of the Sacred from Nature and taught man to deal with and finally destroy it, the social scientists taught man to question the bases of society and manipulate it to suit his fancy or fashion. Theories upon theories came, held the field for some time and made way for others. Old certainties were removed steadily, till we have reached a stage when nothing is certain anymore! All social, political and economic arrangements have been endlessly questioned, and altered, till at last man has reached his wits' end- lost the capacity to question, and ability to alter.

All ancient societies were self contained, self- sufficient and content. But as trade and commerce developed and people came into contact with others, comparisons were made, differences were interpreted in terms of superiority or deficiency. No society feels itself bad or backward unless comparisons are forced on them. This is typical of modern European imperialism. The old conquerors won by sword; Muslims conquered parts of India by sword, gun-powder and forced conversions; the British won by guns, fraud, treachery and tricks, and riding on the back of the mighty missionaries. But their greatest weapon was intellectual assault: they made Indians feel inferior and consciously imitate their colonisers in the name of civilisation and progress, and cooperate with them in the plunder and loot of their own land!. Indians had been so insular and so lacking in knowledge of other people and races that they could not challenge this then; they are so emaciated and made so intellectually barren now due to alien education, that they lack courage and originality and still imitate the west in the name of progress, even though enough material is available to show that it was the Englishmen who were comparatively backward economically, politically and socially till the 18th century.

The Red Indians of North America, the tribal groups of Africa were a contented and self-sufficient people till they were converted, 'educated' and civilised by the western missionaries. Jomo Kenyatta, late President of Kenya once famously said that when the Christian missionaries came to Africa, the Africans had the land , while the white missionaries the Bible. But after the civilising work of the missionaries, the white people got (grabbed) the land and the Africans were left with the Bible! In medieval Europe, the Pope (Church) owned most of the land! Christ said his Kingdom was not of this earth; but Christianity has its roots firmly planted on the soil: it cannot exist without a kingdom of earth! In this respect, the Muslims are more honest, and now, daringly open!

As man's thinking faculty developed, and the idea of the sacred was given up, he started questioning every aspect of life, and reordering everything- from politics, economics, society. Royalty, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy, mobocracy, anarchy, totalitarianism- everything has been offered as the solution in politics. Mercantilism, free trade, capitalism, socialism, communism, gold standard, gold exchange standard, exchange control, Keynesianism, monetarism, Reaganomics, Thatcherism- every thing has been tried in economics, but nothing has worked for long, there has been no end to poverty, starvation, unemployment and unconscionable and devilish disparity in income and wealth. Conservatism,liberalism, Humanism, utilitarianism, Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism- all types of isms have been tried and still no society is reportedly wholly happy. It is a free for all now. No one knows who is in control now. The more advanced we claim to be, the more intense the problems, and the less solvable they turn out to be! Just once instance is sufficient- Global Warming! As David Korten has shown, the world economy has been hijacked and is run by about 50 MNCs, with huge income and least tax burden, whose balance sheets exceed the budgets of many countries! The WTO acts as their spokesman, guarantor and guardian, with the US supplying the muscle and military power. Challenge Pepsi and Coke in India, and see what happens! Jacques Ellul, the great French thinker and sociologist has said that in our present technological society, no one has accountability. He gives some telling examples in his video interview. But we who have suffered a Bhopal know well  how accountability has worked in the last 30 years! The judiciary seems to be least accountable for its delays, for it is a law unto itself, as much as the legislature, executive and the bureaucracy. It is the common man, who does not come under any of these categories, that is both accountable, and taxable!

Man was humble, before the Renaissance. He knew his limitations. This was not due to pessimism, fear of God  (or Devil), or lack of intellectual vigour. It was based on a profound sense of history. The ancient man had a cyclical view of time and history. Things happened according to a predestined order, and the cycles and spirals eternally repeated themselves. Wisdom consisted in man developing understanding based on personal experience, and in devoting himself to the attainment of permanent ends and not chasing transient goals. So he left society untouched, and attended to personal development.

After the Renaissance, man developed hubris- a belief in his own unlimited capacity to deal with anything. First, he dismissed God. Then he dismissed the king. He removed religion from governance officially, formally. Short term secular interests replaced long term vision.Science has developed enormous load of knowledge, but man has lost the wisdom to manage it! So that, the greatest scientific advancement is devoted to developing the most destructive weapons!

Modern man started questioning the existence of God. He has reached a stage when he has succeeded in threatening the very existence of man! The history of English literature alone  since about 1700 bears ample testimony to this!


Some great poets of early 20th century have dealt with these themes. As birds sense first anything unnatural in the environment , it is the true poet who has the subtle vision to see behind appearances. William Butler Yeats (1865-1939, Nobel Laureate,1923) was disturbed by the modern egalitarian trends in society which were fast displacing the spiritual and heroic values. Though a supporter of Irish culture and its distinct status and value, he was against narrow nationalist chauvinism. He had a deep historical vision, and shared with the ancients their cyclical view of time and civilisations. He developed interest in occult wisdom, though its precise form  and intensity varied through the years. He sought the larger meaning behind the events of history, and for him the First World War was a sign of the degenerate state of Western civilisation. Towards the end of his life, he gave up all interest in politics. To an Indian it appears that his approach to history was mystical- he saw or sought  the meta-aspect of history. It is thus entirely appropriate that he gave the introduction to Tagore's ( Nobel Laureate,1913) Gitanjali when it was published in 1916. We may or may not agree with his vision and  views on all subjects; but that he stood out from the common run of literary figures of his day, and sought a deeper meaning into life and society beyond what conventional literature and science of his day advocated, is what should interest us. The western academic world has its own coloured glasses through which to look at literary figures, but we are under no compulsion to look through them! That western civilisation had lost its roots of traditional wisdom, and had not found new values in its place, as witnessed by the Great War, is the message we get from Yeats.

T.S. Eliot (1888-1965; Nobel Laureate, 1948) was the other great modern literary figure to be openly critical of the current phase of civilisation. He was openly spiritual or philosophical in his approach. He too took the First World  War as a sign of crisis in western society and civilisation. The barrenness of it is described tellingly in the very title of perhaps his most well-known poem: "The Waste Land". For me, the following lines from his poem "The Rock" (1934) best describe what has happened in the name of progress and civilisation:


The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,
The Hunter with his dog pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,
O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,
O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death.
But nearer to death, no nearer to GOD.

Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

We have banished God from our practical concerns, and are engaged in endless activity. The IT revolution has reduced us all to some number everywhere- we are not even reckoned or regarded as human beings: some mobile phone number, some identity card number, ration card number, bank account number,etc. Earlier, only prisoners used to be identified by numbers; now we all are , for we have become prisoners of the 'system'- whatever it may mean. In a speech in 1935, Eliot said:

.....the question of questions,which no political philosophy can escape, and by the right answer to which all political thinking must in the end be judged, is simply this: What is man? What are his limitations? What is his misery and what  his greatness? And what finally, his destiny?

No sane person will ever undertake a journey without knowing the destination. But this is exactly what science has taught whole societies to do in the name of advancement! Go and join the crowd, but don't ask where you are going or why! Enjoy while the going is good! A Hindi celluloid poet wrote long ago:


 Ye hanstahuva Karwan zindagi ka 
na poocho chala hai kidar
Tamanna hai yeh saath chalte rahe
ham na beetey  kabhi yeh safar!

This pageant of life- do not ask whither it is bound.Seek to join it, and hope not to get left behind.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 50.PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

50. PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

The world operates on the idea or assumption that we are constantly improving or progressing. The image of science and technology, the commercial and industrial complexes, the economic and educational establishments,the media etc give us this constant message that we are advancing. But those who are able and willing to see beyond the surface note the problems and pains, the suffering and squalor, and the unsolvable new problems created in the very name of progress and development: much of science and technology is devoted to war and violence; despite claims of economic progress, over one third of mankind suffers from hunger, want and poverty; nature, which is the basis of sustenance is itself threatened.

Modern society glosses over realities. Economic pundits gather in fashionable star hotels to discuss ways to deal with poverty. Air, water, soil, the rivers and seas-everything is polluted;yet half the scientists question the facts, while the other half does not know what to do or how to go about it. The media spreads the merry images of happy people- all youngsters, enjoying everything. The sight of old age, sickness and death turned a prince Siddhartha on the road to Buddhahood; modern barons of society would not let knowledge of reality to percolate down. A modern version of William Blake's The Chimney Sweeper states:

And because I am happy,& dance & sing,

They think they have done me no injury,

And are gone to praise  God & his Priest and King,

Who make up a heaven of our misery.

(Taken from The Norton Anthology, World Masterpieces, Vol.II, 7th edition, p.541)

As Shailendra, our master celluloid poet wrote 60 years ago:

Rasta wohi, aur musafir wohi,

Ek taara na jaane kahan chup gaya

Duniya wohi, duniyawale wohi

Koyi kya jaane kiska jahan lut gaya

The world goes by appearances. Unless catastrophe strikes wholesale or on a mass scale, society will not recognise or react. But by then it may be too late, the 29th day! Only, now we don't go to praise God or his priest or king, but the new demigods- the scientists, the technocrats, the economists.

All the ancient traditions of the world held the contrary view that humankind started in a pristine state, and had progressively declined. The original golden age has turned into iron age- the dark age. Religion was the answer to the deterioration. They all stressed the inner state of man.

Even taking a historical religion, we see that the Judeo-Christian tradition started with the idea of a 'fall'- the expulsion and fall from Paradise. If we don't lose our head in the literal nonsense, and see the symbolic nature, we at once see the beauty and majesty of the idea and its truth: humanity has been or got alienated from the original consciousness of Unity of Existence- call it paradise, God, what you will. Regaining that original consciousness is the real spiritual or religious endeavour. To the extent we are all born in a society which operates with such an alienated understanding, we all partake of the 'original sin'.

We in India are only aware of the missionary version of Christianity- full of mischief, malice and propaganda. And we loathe their vulgar conversion efforts. But these things should not blind us to the inner core of truth and beauty. It does not mean the solution  given by their priests is correct. In the theological version, Satan tempts Eve and Adam, induces them to eat the forbidden fruit and thus disobey God. God knew it and yet kept quiet! Satan was his own creation, no less than Adam and Eve, yet God did not correct them, allowed them to fall, and then punished them for the disobedience! What kind of God is he? Which parent would allow a child to commit a mistake and then punish it for the same?

These problems arise because a symbol or allegory is taken as the literal truth.

We Hindus start with the idea of karma. But how did karma start at all? We say, it is 'anaadhi'- without beginning. So, we take it as given. We don't know the why of it.

Our Sages do not enter into the questions of origin at all. It is the preoccupation of philosophers, ending in no insight but endless speculation and dispute. And knowing the origin solves no problems. So, sages take the situation as it is and give a way out. They say no matter where we are, we may get out. As the old stories used to say, when some one is hit by a poisonous arrow, should we enquire into the origin  and nature of the arrow or  seek a remedy?

The three modern Masters we have been considering all gave us such a practical approach. Sri Ramakrishna came particularly at a time when English education was blinding our youth to the truth of our religion, missionaries were leading them away, and reform movements were leading them astray. He sat in Calcutta, the seat of imperial power and centre of modern education, spurning bread-winning education and taught mainly educated people how to practice religion and spirituality. He pointed out the truth of our traditional religious practises and showed us what was relevant and effective for the modern age.The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is a complete  manual of practical religion for all Hindu aspirants.

It is now fashionable in certain quarters to talk of Sri Ramakrishna as the advocate of harmony or equality of all religions. It is true that he undertook certain exercises in Sufi form of Islam and Christianity. But at no time he took proper initiation in them, or practised them beyond three days! And Sufism is not accepted by many Muslims as real Islam at all! Unless one gets 'baptised', one is not treated as a Christian at all! Any one can read the Bible and claim to follow Christianity! In the circumstances of religious strife which prevailed then, Sri Ramakrishna did point out that all of them reached the same goal. It is not the same thing as saying that all religions are equal! Hindus have never sought to convert others, have always been the targets and victims of conversion. If Ramakrishna's message on harmony has any relevance at all, it is for the Muslims and Christians but they do not accept him as their authority! So long as Muslims and Christians do not give up their conversion aim, any talk of inter-religious harmony is pure bunkum, and sheer hypocrisy, plain idiocy.. Those RK Math monks who indulge in such talk are fooling themselves and fooling us, and doing grave injustice to Sri Ramakrishna and damaging the interests of Hindus. No less an authority than Holy Mother herself said, on one occasion when a disciple mentioned the subject of inter-religious harmony vis a vis Sri Ramakrishna, the following:

My son, your idea about the harmony of religions is all right.But I do not think that he followed various religions in order to teach this idea.Day and night he was immersed in the thought of God , and was absorbed in ecstasy.He delighted in experiencing  that same One God through the various paths/sects of Hinduism and through Christianity and Islam. As for me, Thakur's great/chief characteristic was his renunciation. Can we witness such natural renunciation in any one else? Renunciation  alone was his ornament.

(Recorded in the detailed biography of Holy Mother in Tamil by Swami Asutoshananda, 2008, page 127. The above is my translation. See this also in the biography by Swami Gambhirananda, p.463)

Sri Ramakrishna respected all religions and all holy people. It does not mean he gave up his own religion, or valued others above it. Apart from the period of his sadhana (about 3 days each) he did not follow any of the Christian or Islamic practices. His attitude to Hindus converted to Christianity is well illustrated in his reaction to Michael Madhusudan Dutta, a well-known lawyer and literary figure. When he met Sri Ramakrishna, he disclosed that poverty made him convert to Christianity- something that did not please  the people around. Later, Dutta sought some spiritual instructions from the Master but he said 'he felt as if some one was pressing his mouth shut and not allowing him to speak.' After some time his mood changed and he sang some devotional songs,but gave no instructions.

(See:Sri Ramakrishna and His Divine Play: Swami Chetanananda, Vedanta Society of St.Louis,2003, p593-4)

On 4 January,1884, M  was sitting with the Master and mentioned that Keshab Chandra Sen's health had deteriorated. They then fell to talking about his Brahmo Samaj. Sri Ramakrishna said that though Keshab had at one time thought high of Christianity and accepted their views,  he had now accepted Mother Kali , repeated her name and chanted Her glories. He then asked M what he thought- whether the Brahmo Samaj would develop into a sort of social-reform organisation. M replied :

The soil of this country is different.Only what is true survives here.

Sri Ramakrishna said:

Yes, that is so. The Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Religion, declared by the rishis will alone endure. But there will also remain some sects like the Brahmo Samaj. Everything appears and disappears through the will of God.


(The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,1996, p378)

This entry is important. It shows Sri Ramakrishna's attitude towards Hinduism- the religion declared by the rishis.After Keshab came in contact with our Master, his views gradually changed, he accepted the idea of God as Mother which led to dissensions within his ranks. At the same time, there have been numerous sects, most of them with reform agenda. Mahatma Gandhi stole the thunder from the Brahmo Samaj- combining social reform with constructive social service and  economic revival, but after him, it has all degenerated into political activity. But the most disturbing fact is the so called secular govt. itself has become the agent of reform, which mostly takes an anti-Hindu turn.

Sri Ramakrisna's sole concern was God Realisation and one could not get a single idea from him for any reform- on questions like child marriage, widow remarriage, women's education, caste, etc. Gandhi took on too many things and made a mess of everything-including Independence, which resulted in Partition. In no field did he succeed.

It was the same attitude with the other Masters too.Sai Baba lived before the freedom movement mecame mass-based, but Sri Ramana's period fully coincided with it.  Many of his devotees and visitors had also been followers of Gandhi. But Bhagavan was totally aloof, detached. People were free to follow what they would, but they could not make the Asramam a ground for their experiments. The Asramam was a place for spiritual discipline; those who were qualified and earnest found a silent guide in Bhagavan, with no words exchanged. Those who were not ripe but eager, could learn or gain something from the very atmosphere. The uninitiated could just come and go. Each thus gained according to his attitude, interest and intensity. 

Sri Ramana was the least conventional and orthodox in his teaching- which is generally not appreciated enough. He was in fact revolutionary.

 Sri Ramakrishna expounded the Bhagavata religion- simple and direct devotion to God-his authorities being Narada, Bhagavata, Gita, Adhyatma Ramayana. Above all was Mother Kali. He positively discouraged Vedantic sadhana and encouraged people to worship Mother- while upholding the truth of all paths. This was tailored for householders in this Kali Age, who were the overwhelming majority of his devotees and followers.Some form of spiritual discipline, and a definite attitude to God was essential. He extolled renunciation, but not in the external form of Sanyasa for all. Catch hold of the feet of God with one hand, and work in the world with the other, was his advice to householders.

Sai Baba appeared unconventional for a Hindu in his dress and some expressions. But his instructions were exactly conventional- have a guru, respect him as God, do not neglect family traditions  and           conventions in the matter of worship, fulfil your vows faithfully, do regular spiritual sadhana,- these were his main instructions. He asked people to read specific devotional works of Marathi saints, as almost all his visitors were Marathi-speaking.

A remarkable aspect of Baba's ministry was that he could tell devotees what they missed- some might have vowed something to their family deity but forgotten, some might not even know their family deity or guru etc. Baba would direct them. Many people came seeking him, but he would direct them to their own gurus. Many visitors also beheld their tutelary or ishata devta in Baba! It was such small but intimate acts which bound people to him- not flashing miracles.

One unconventional aspect of Baba was demanding dakshina- but as Arthur Osborne pointed out, this seems to have been symbolic. eg: two rupees might mean two essential qualities- sraddha and saburi-faith and patience; 5 rupees could mean surrender of the indriyas to the guru, etc. But he did not ask dakshina from all, nor would he accept from all. He said he asked  only those from whom it was due- who could say, it was from which birth? He said he collected dakshina only from those who belonged to him. He would insist only on particular sums, very small, and refuse large offers. It would happen that he demanded the exact amount some one had vowed but forgotten! The whole thing is mysterious. And all the collections would be distributed to needy people. Towards the end, huge amounts came to him- it attracted the notice of Income Tax  people- even in those days! But nothing would remain with him. After he died,  only 16 rupees were found there!

Bhagavan Ramana was unconventional, though people did not realise. He was the least free- constantly surrounded by followers. But most of them did not follow his method- yet they wanted to benefit by being in his company! We have no clear idea of what an Asramam is! Gandhi had two Ashrams- in Sabarmati and Wardha- where the inmates were trained in some discipline, had to follow regular routine. Sri Aurobindo's Ashram was a place for Sadhana- but individual. The inmates pursued their own methods, with guidance from Mother. The inmates could submit their questions or doubts which Sri Aurobindo would answer patiently, but they could see him only on 4 or 5 occasions in the year! That was not an Ashram which depended on charity- so every one had to do the work assigned by the Mother! It was not a place for idle assembly or mere contemplation! Even today, most people have no idea of the concept. Sri Aurobindo's Yoga was not the world shunning type.

Sri Ramanasramam was also different. ( I am writing of those days.) Most devotees lived in other towns, had jobs and could visit only on holidays. The place was away from the town, like a jungle and so for their own convenience they built some sheds . Bhagavan had laid down that donations should not be solicited.Visitors were expected to meet their expenses. With the steady increase in the number of visitors some organisation and facilities became necessary and with it came controls, regulations, etc.It was not all smooth all the time. 

The surprising thing was that though every one came for the sake of Bhagavan, Bhagavan was himself least concerned with these doings, unless some matter was referred to him. Often he had to remind visitors: "Mind the work for which you came here." Bhagavan thus kept himself distinct from the Asramam management.

Which was all to the good, because some people were not welcome in the Asramam, some did not like it.Even when the management prohibited some one from visiting Bhagavan, Bhagavan would go out to meet them! Ladies could not stay there, nor could any one stay for long ,except with special permission. But some staunch devotees made arrangements to stay nearby, so that they could visit Bhagavan daily. Lady devotees had written about the hardships they faced in doing so.

The highlight/ main activity was just to sit in the Hall with Bhagavan, mostly in silence. As there was no formal teaching, it was entirely up to the individual to derive  benefit.

Thus the word Asramam does not mean the same in all cases. I have been visiting Sri Ramanasramam from 1970 and have seen the changes over the years. In the prevailing political and social conditions in Tamil Nad, it is difficult for spiritual institutions to function, especially when they do not cater to popular demand or meet popular ideas, especially when they are considered elite.In short, when they do not pander to local chauvinism.

This can be seen clearly in case of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. From the early days, it was an elite institution. Sri Aurobindo had said that his yoga was not for every one, and that only those who felt the call would take it up. They never made any publicity, nor called people to come. Though Sri Aurobindo lived and worked there in Pondicherry for 40 years, the local population or those in neighbouring Tamil Nad did not read his works, because they were all in high English. But when some Tamil writers started writing about 'miracles' or such things connected with the Mother, the cult of the Mother spread and gripped the people. The most prominent among them was Karmayogi. His essential message was  that the Yoga was tough, but Mother could be approached for worldly favours, even if they did not intend to follow Yoga, provided they observed some methods!

But the Ashram has also been the target of pro-Tamil and other chauvinist groups whenever a political issue crops up, be it anti-Hindi agitation, anti-Srilanka agitation, etc. I have found that both in Tiruvannamalai and in Pondicherry, the local people are against the Ashrams! They seem to be unaware that these are international centres and are not meant to cater to local whims! They cannot assume local colour!

I found such prejudice even in some educated quarters. Once I was talking to a writer and social worker. He complained that after all, Sri Aurobindo Ashram had not done anything for the local people! I asked him to explain. After some fumbling, he said there were so many poor people,the living and sanitary conditions were bad in Pondicherry and the Ashram had done nothing to improve matters! I asked him what his idea of the Ashram was- a charitable organisation, social service organisation, reform movement, or what? Had he read their statement about the aims and activities of the Ashram? Had he read Sri Aurobindo's writings on the subject? Should every "Ashram'" do the same things, and jump into social/ religious/ charity activity? Can he accuse the Indian Institute of Science of not doing slum improvement work? or undertaking flood or cyclone relief? He could as well accuse them of not reducing unemployment in the city!

On the contrary the Ashram had been there for all to see: a self-contained community; with simple but elegant and neat buildings, with no litter around; an aesthetic touch everywhere; their show-rooms are so well laid and organised; their products- be it agarbattis, hand-made paper, ayurvedic medicines the best of their kind; one of the best printing presses in India with reputation for quality printing and binding; all the inmates assigned some productive work; their inmates moving about simply on bicycles ; a quiet touch of efficiency everywhere; a neatly maintained and decorated Samadhi, with complete silence, in spite of so many daily visitors! I said they had all been there all the time and why the locals could not emulate any of them? How dirty was the Manakkula Vinayakar temple just across the street! The Ashram was responsible for that too?

The point is: the govt is inactive; civic authorities are sleeping; there are so many dissensions and groups among them; not many of them are really educated. They only have the mob mentality and mass psychology: they feel that if they gather in numbers, they can force themselves in - the law enforcers are in their hands! And the public has no civic sense or consciousness! They have no sense of order, no eye for beauty. But they feel satisfied if some one else is criticised!

The real question is : Pondicherry is a State capital. It has the state bureaucracy, a central university, a highly publicised medical establishment. What have they contributed to Pondicherry?

It was said about the French Revolution that one of its causes was that 'the nobility did not pay; the clergy did not pray; the common man was asked both to pay and pray'. Now, in India, the govt. does not govern; the govt. hospitals do not heal; the govt. schools cannot teach. But the common man is taxed at all levels- the corporation, state and centre. Most of this tax revenue goes to feed the bureaucracy, which does not know what hard work or productivity or creativity is.

One important lesson Mahatma Gandhi taught us was self-help and self reliance. During the freedom movement , he led agitations. But he also undertook many 'constructive'  activities in the social and economic spheres, without having any  official power. Where has that spirit gone since Independence? We can neither make the govt. work, nor work ourselves! But we find fault with those who mind their own work!

.